'Let His Buggy Sit Some More:' Mechanic Gets a Customer Call First-Thing in the Morning. Then He Cancels His $1,300 Order
TikTok user RNG Performance (
@redneckgarage1
) is an Ohio-based mechanic and parts dealer for off-road vehicles, in particular those from Chinese brand CFMoto. He also rebuilds clutches. In a recent video, he explains why he refused service to a customer who was upset with the amount of time it took to get the clutch he ordered delivered, which was resulting in his vehicle spending extra time at the dealership awaiting repair.
Stay informed with our newsletter every weekday
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
'This guy calls this morning as soon as we open,' explains RNG's owner and operator. 'He's giving my wife a hard time. You know what? It's a big order. This guy wants to talk to me that way … I said I was going to stick to the policy and stuff. I changed my mind. I'm gonna let his buggy sit some more at the dealer.'
As he speaks, the owner goes onto his computer and processes a refund for the angry customer.
'It's a full, 100 percent refund,' he says. 'I'm just not gonna tolerate this from a customer. Money doesn't mean a dang thing to me.'
What Started the Argument
The mechanic says, 'All my regular customers know that I work hard to get your stuff out as fast as possible. He knew his belt was on back order. He paid extra shipping to have it shipped when it comes in. That's fine.'
He continues, 'But, guys, I build clutches more than anyone in the CFMoto industry. And I'm so busy. I don't trust other people to do what I do, so I do it all. Every clutch that gets purchased—whether it's a complete clutch, a clutch kit, whatever—it all goes through me. When it goes out the door, I want to make sure it's right.'
Trending Now
'Third Time's the Charm:' Woman Notices 4 Chunks of Paint Missing From Her White Palisade. Then She Takes It to Hyundai
'This Goes Against All of My Irish Bloodline Superstitions:' Woman Parks Her Car in the Hot Sun. Then She Pops Open Her Umbrella
He acknowledges that he has had mishaps in the past, but says he works hard to complete every job in a timely manner and address any issues after the fact.
'I can only work as much as I can work,' he says. 'Let's get into the phone call.'
The Infamous Phone Call
The video then cuts to a clip of the owner answering the phone earlier in the day. His friendly, informal greeting is met with instant aggression and profanity. The customer indicates (not so politely) that he is ready to get the clutch and belt that he ordered—yesterday. The shop owner insists that there are customers ahead of him and the process is going as quickly as possible.
The conversation gets even more heated, with the customer threatening to 'pull up' to the establishment and confront the proprietor in person.
'I paid for separate shipping for a belt,' the customer says. 'And on top of that, you guys took my money two weeks ago for my clutch. I'm getting charged $45 a day to have my equipment and my machine wait for your parts.'
The customer says he is a business owner himself and RNG is holding up his business. 'You're making excuses, my boy,' the customer says.
The two men continue to argue about how to proceed. While the owner threatens to cancel the entire transaction on numerous occasions, he also indicates that he's willing to prioritize getting the customer's clutch out as soon as possible—if the customer apologizes.
At this point, however, it seems the customer is fed up. He now wants the refund, says he's not going to do any business with RNG going forward, and appears to threaten the owner with a face-to-face altercation.
Opinions Differ
In the comments section, some people took the mechanic's side. But viewers overwhelmingly took the side of the customer in this situation.
'Three weeks?' asked one person. 'I'm with the customer. You seem like you just don't [care] about getting things done in a timely manner. Don't care about money? You might when people stop buying from you.'
A second person agreed. 'Bad customer service, created a frustrated customer, and you made a joke out of it,' they wrote.
Someone else said, 'I don't care about all the drama. As a business, you need to work on deescalating disgruntled customers. Going back and forth with this guy and matching his energy just makes you look emotional and reactive rather than someone who knows how to manage situations.'
Another person agreed. 'I was on your side… until I saw the video,' they wrote. 'If you're busy with this and that, stop making videos until you get caught up. You seem like a good guy, but your mentality has to change.'
Of such critics, RNG Performance says in a
follow-up
, "A lot of you ain't got a clue what you're talking about." In a separate
post
, he adds, "The boss can do what the boss wants."
Motor1
reached out to RNG Performance via TikTok comment and direct message for comment. We'll update this if he responds.
More From Motor1
'This Motor Might Say Land Rover…:' Mechanic Lifts the Hood of a Luxury SUV. Then He Reveals Who Actually Makes the Engine
'When Somebody Gets Their Certification Off Youtube:' Mechanic Makes Mistake During Oil Change. Now Oil's On the Ceiling. Why?
Ram's Hemi-Themed Mechanical Bull Wasn't Stolen After All
'I Guarantee This Guy's a Flat Rate Mechanic:' Mechanic Removes Customer's Engine. Then He Shows How
Share this Story
X
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
1 dead after crash on Atlantic City Expressway in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, police say
One person died in a crash on the Atlantic City Expressway in Hamilton Township Thursday night, New Jersey State Police said. The car crashed into a tollbooth in the westbound lanes and caught fire, police said. New Jersey State Police are at the scene. Two of the toll lanes are closed because of the crash, but traffic is getting through, according to police.
Motor Trend
an hour ago
- Motor Trend
EPA Proposes Deregulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Vehicles: Does It Make Sense?
The Environmental Protection Agency has officially proposed ending its regulation of greenhouse gases for new cars, trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. Specifically, it proposed rescinding the landmark 2009 Endangerment Finding, which identified greenhouse gases as contributors to climate change and, therefore, pollutants and a danger to human health and wellbeing under the Clean Air Act. The latter is the basis of all greenhouse gas regulation since. If enacted, this proposal will, according to the EPA, 'remove all existing regulations that require new motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engine manufacturers to measure, report, or comply with GHG (greenhouse gas) emission standards.' Automakers would still have to control other pollutants, but not carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, or hydrofluorocarbons. (The regulation also covers perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, which are not found in vehicle exhaust.) Where This Came From Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act states, 'The Administrator [of the EPA] shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' Until 2008, the EPA's position was that it had no authority to regulate greenhouse gases. In 2008, the Supreme Court sided with Massachusetts and 18 other states in ruling the EPA does, in fact, have authority because the statute is written very broadly and carbon dioxide meets that broad definition. The Court told the EPA to reconsider its position, which it did, leading to the Endangerment Finding. In essence, the EPA administrator at the time found that science supported classifying carbon dioxide and the five other greenhouse gases noted above as pollutants under Section 202(a), and the agency was therefore obliged to regulate them. On January 20, 2025, newly re-elected President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled 'Unleashing American Energy' that directs relevant federal agencies to deregulate the energy sector, specifically regarding emissions. Upon Senate confirmation, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin initiated a review of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in response to the president's executive order. Having done so, the EPA has now published its plan to rescind the order. Public comments will be taken through September 15, and public hearings will take place on August 19, 20, and if necessary, 21. A final decision will be made some time after the public comment period closes. Why Is the EPA Doing This? The EPA says regulating greenhouse gas emissions is making vehicles more expensive for both businesses and consumers. By making commercial vehicles more expensive, the agency says, regulating greenhouse gas emissions makes everything shipped by truck pricier. It also argues that repealing these regulations will 'revitalize the American auto industry,' bring back auto industry jobs, and create other new jobs by making it more affordable to manufacture vehicles in the U.S. The agency does not provide an explanation for how this will work. Greenhouse gas regulations are not a primary driver of offshoring automobile manufacturing. In theory, the R&D cost of developing cleaner powertrains would be reduced and automakers could pass those savings onto consumers in the form of lower prices, but they are not required to do so and there is no guarantee they would. The U.S. ceasing regulation of greenhouse gases is, in fact, unlikely to have a major impact on automaker R&D spending as no other major car market is lowering or eliminating standards, so automakers will still need to invest in technologies to meet those requirements in order to sell outside the U.S., which all automakers do. No. The 2009 Endangerment Finding only covers the greenhouse gases listed above. Other sections of the Clean Air Act require the EPA to regulate vehicle exhaust emissions including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen (which are different than nitrous oxide), and particulate matter. As the EPA states in this proposal, 'We are not proposing to reopen or substantively revise any emission standards for criteria pollutants or hazardous air pollutants or to reopen or substantively revise any regulatory provisions related to NHTSA's CAFE standards.' It should be noted, however, that although the EPA is not attempting to mess with its corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4, 2025, reduces the penalties for violating CAFE regulations to $0.00. This means there is no penalty for automakers who fail to improve their vehicles' fuel economy or even allow it to go down. There is no federal EV mandate in America, and there never was. While the EPA and administrator Zeldin, among other Trump Administration officials, continue to refer to one, no such mandate has ever existed. The CAFE fuel economy standards approved in the Biden Administration's waning days would have forced automakers to improve fuel economy to lofty new heights, but it did not dictate how to achieve those goals. Automakers complained that doing so with pure combustion engines would be extremely difficult and suggested hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and pure electric powertrains would be necessary to meet them. The regulation as written, however, was neutral on which technologies should be used to achieve them. Some conservative pundits and political analysts interpreted this as a de facto mandate, making the regulations so strict they couldn't be met by traditional means. This discounts the ingenuity of automotive powertrain engineers, who have in the past found technical solutions for regulations that were also decried as impossible at the time. Regardless, their interpretation does not mean a legal mandate to use a specific technology—EVs—exists or ever existed. While there was no federal mandate to overturn, California has its own mandate that requires all vehicles sold in the state in 2035 to be zero-emissions, which it defines as EVs, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, and confusingly, plug-in hybrid vehicles. That mandate is on hold after Congress voted to rescind California's waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own standards, which California has challenged in court. Are V-8s Back on the Menu? For a limited time, most likely. While the U.S. is one of the largest auto markets in the world, it's only one market. Automakers will have to continue developing emissions controls, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and EVs for the rest of the globe, where sales of large-displacement motors are likely to continue to fall. Eventually, it's going to be too expensive to design and build bigger, dirtier, less efficient engines for just one market. It's also entirely possible the political situation in America will change in 2026 and or 2028, and with it the regulatory environment. If Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress next year and/or the presidency in '28, they'll most likely reinstate all the rules the Trump Administration has repealed and could make them even stricter. Automakers are very aware of this possibility and are unlikely to risk being caught out and behind on R&D if the regulations snap back into place. Automakers plan five to 10 years in advance, and historically, emissions and fuel economy regulations have only gotten stricter (until now). For these reasons, car companies are likely to continue developing emissions controls, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and EVs, so there's unlikely to be big savings for the consumer. Similarly, it's unlikely they'll invest heavily in all-new gasoline and diesel engines knowing the regulations could come back before those products pay for themselves. Existing engines, though, could continue to be built as-is without incurring any new costs. It's likely that automakers who struggled under current regulations will continue to offer V-8s and other pure combustion engines several years longer than they would have had the rules remained in place. Some, such as Stellantis, may put such engines into additional models to make a quick buck before the clock runs out. Eventually, though, those engines will still probably be phased out. It's just a question of when. This action by the EPA is probably a temporary reprieve, not a permanent shift in the auto industry. What Is the EPA's Rationale for Rescinding Its Own Rules? The agency's explanation for this move is a desire to lower costs for consumers. It contends that controlling greenhouse gas emissions adds significant cost to vehicles, which in turn adds significant cost to anything delivered by a more expensive vehicle. Relatedly, it contends the regulations are hurting American automakers, specifically by driving up their costs and stifling their ability to make greater profits. It makes no mention of the costs to Americans in cleaning up and rebuilding after climate-related natural disasters fueled by climate change, which significantly exceed the other costs mentioned above. It also suggests that in making cars more expensive with emissions-control regulations, the current law keeps old cars on the road longer and makes climate change worse. It's a valid point if you ignore all the other reasons cars are getting more expensive—and it undercuts the agency's own arguments against the scientific consensus on climate change in the same document. To support this conclusion and the proposed deregulation, the agency provides a laundry list of reasons that, in our analysis, are often contradictory, lacking context, and in some cases factually incorrect. It even goes so far as to undermine its own arguments by laying out ways in which it can still achieve its goals even if all its other arguments fail in any ensuing court cases, which suggests the authors are fully aware of how weak their position is. The rationale relies most heavily on reinterpreting Supreme Court rulings of the past two decades and introducing doubt about the scientific basis for climate change. Neither is a strong case. In the first matter, the EPA argues it doesn't have jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court already ruled in Mass. vs. EPA that it does, and courts have struck down several legal challenges to the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The Supreme Court has turned down appeals to review those lower court decisions. To get around this, the agency argues Mass. vs. EPA did not require the agency to regulate greenhouse gases, which is true, but the ruling affirmed carbon dioxide meets the statutory definition of a pollutant and required the agency to go back and look at the science. Affirming that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are pollutants then obligated the agency to regulate them in motor vehicles under Section 202(a). From there, the EPA goes on to argue more recent Supreme Court decisions narrowing the authority of executive agencies to interpret the law and requiring them instead to focus on the explicit wording as it applies here. None of the cases cited is related to the 2009 Endangerment Finding or Section 202(a). That aside, it still seems a difficult case to make. Section 202(a) is written very broadly and explicitly gives the EPA administrator authority to regulate any pollutants that 'in [his or her] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' It quite literally tells the EPA administrator to interpret the science and use his or her best judgement. To get around this problem, the agency does something it explicitly accuses its predecessors of doing in 2009: 'mental leaps' that 'were admittedly novel.' It argues now that the Clean Air Act requires the effects of any pollution to be local or regional at most, not global, to be within its power to regulate. This is not supported by the text of the Act or by case law. It goes on to argue the Clean Air Act requires it to show vehicles, specifically, are a contributor to climate change in order to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions. The Act does not say this, and science has long proven vehicle exhaust contributes to climate change. Why make such weak arguments? It's possible the agency and the Trump Administration are banking on the ideological shift in the Supreme Court since 2009. None of the justices who voted in favor of Mass. vs. EPA are on the court today, but three of the dissenters are. The agency makes a similarly weak case against the science behind climate change. First, it introduces doubt about the scientific consensus around climate change by suggesting the scientific facts have changed since 2009 and should be reevaluated. While technically correct, the consensus around climate change has actually increased in terms of its impact, not decreased. A 2009 study published in the journal of the American Geophysical Union found 80 percent of climate scientists agreed climate change is real and caused by humans. Today, that number stands at 99.9 percent, according to a 2021 study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters . It analyzed 88,125 climate-related studies published globally since 2012 and found only 28 papers that were skeptical of human-caused climate change. The agency goes on to blame foreign sources for contributing more greenhouse gases than the U.S., without mentioning the U.S. is the second largest polluter overall and the largest per capita (that is, individual Americans contribute more than individual citizens of other nations). From there, the EPA begins to seriously undercut its own argument. It argues the effects of climate change aren't as bad as scientists predicted, which both admits climate change is real and caused by humans. It's also factually untrue. The actual degree of warming has followed almost exactly the trajectory first laid out by ExxonMobil scientists in 1977. Further, by admitting the effects of climate change are bad but arguing the semantics, the agency admits it causes harm to human health and welfare, therefore meeting the standard for regulation under Section 202(a). The EPA then pivots to damage control, laying out multiple arguments as to why it should be allowed to stop regulating greenhouse gas emissions even if the science behind the concern is sound, and the 2009 Endangerment Finding is well supported. First, it attacks science again by claiming the administrator in 2009 interpreted it wrong. Given the science is stronger now than it was then, this should be a moot point. It then accuses the 2009 administrator of breaking up the analysis into multiple parts and not considering them as a complete whole, which it says may have affected the conclusion. Given all the parts reached the same conclusion, this is again a moot point. Finally, it argues it has authority to rescind the Endangerment Finding and stop regulating greenhouse gas emissions even if the science is correct because there's no perfect technology that will eliminate all greenhouse gases in vehicle exhaust. Note that the Clean Air Act does not require such a standard. It further argues the agency's belief that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle exhaust to zero would have no measurable impact on climate change, which is demonstrably false. In essence, it's saying because there's no perfect, easy solution, and because we at today's agency don't believe the science (which we admit might be correct), we shouldn't even try.
Motor Trend
an hour ago
- Motor Trend
How Much Will the 2026 Jeep Cherokee Cost? A Lot
It's been a minute since we last saw the Jeep Cherokee, but it's coming back and looks rather good for a compact SUV with mechanical AWD. It's also coming with some electrification via a hybrid system. We now also know it will not be cheap when compared to its competitors. Let's start with the good news regarding the 2026 Jeep Cherokee Hybrid. The 1.6-liter gas engine puts down 177 hp and 221 lb-ft of torque, and the latter provides solid grunt at just 2,000 RPM. It's coupled to a 1.08-kWh battery and a 33-hp, 9-lb-ft hybrid system for a total output of 210 hp and 230 lb-ft. While all that power is sent through a planetary-type continuously variable automatic transmission, it can also go to all four wheels through a transfer case. That said, the Cherokee Hybrid doesn't get a dedicated low gear. Sorry light crawler fans. It will have 8.0 inches of ground clearance, 19.6 degrees of approach angle, an 18.8-degree breakover angle, and 29.4 degrees of departure angle, so there is some real SUV left in the 2026 Jeep Cherokee. The Cherokee can also tow up to 3,500 pounds, Jeep says, so there's some good news for those looking to attach a small camper to the new version. Keep in mind, these are stats for the mainstream Cherokee—an off-road Trailhawk version is surely coming, but has yet to be detailed. So, How Much Will It Cost? However, with a starting ticket of $36,995, the 2026 Jeep Cherokee Hybrid is starting off on a relatively pricey foot. It's not the most expensive in its class (compact SUVs), but it isn't the cheapest by a long shot. We'll compare prices to its competition shortly. The next level up is the Cherokee Laredo at $39,995, followed by the Limited trim at $42,495, and the upscale Overland at $45,995. The Cherokee is not your cheep Jeep anymore, but this is an issue for the smaller Compass, too. As the smallest Jeep you can buy, even the latter comes in at $28,895—that's for a subcompact crossover, a class where a low-$20,000 starting price is possible. Pricey Not Only for a Compact SUV, but for a Compact Hybrid SUV, Too The Jeep's premium pricing becomes more apparent when you compare it to top small hybrid SUVs. First up is the 2025 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid and, comparing base-for-base trims, the Cherokee costs $2,945 more. The up-level RAV4 Limited is $3,640 cheaper than the similarly named and fancy Cherokee, too. OK, so what if we compare the Cherokee to our second-best-ranked hybrid SUV in the segment, the Kia Sportage Hybrid? The Sportage S, at $34,035, is $2,960 cheaper than the Cherokee. The X-Line, the off-road special of the Sportage Hybrid lineup at $36,935, is $9,060 less than the Cherokee Overland and represents the biggest price gap of all our comparisons here. The SX Prestige, the top-of-the-line Sportage Hybrid, is $41,835, or a gap of $4,160. The Jeep isn't the most expensive outright, however. The 2026 Honda CR-V Hybrid, at $38,580 in entry-level Sport Hybrid trim is $1,585 more expensive than the new Cherokee. However, the TrailSport Hybrid—at $40,250—eats the Jeep for breakfast in price by being $5,745 cheaper than the Cherokee Overland, and surely the upcoming Trailhawk will be even more expensive. But the CR-V Sport Touring Hybrid AWD is $1,205 more than the Cherokee Limited. Overall, for the price, the 2026 Jeep Cherokee does sort of hit a high middle ground in pricing. On average, it is around $3,827 more expensive than our MotorTrend top-three-ranked small hybrid SUVs (including the two Honda CR-V trims that are cheaper). It seems more expensive overall because, well, most of its competitors also offer cheaper non-hybrid powertrain options; the Cherokee is hybrid-only, so there's no version you can buy for less that lines up with entry-level gas-only CR-Vs, Sportages, and the like. Toyota's RAV4 is going all-hybrid, too, for 2026, but we don't yet know how much that version will cost. If the Camry sedan is any indication—it, too, recently went all-hybrid—Toyota will hold entry-level prices for the new RAV4 hybrid close to those of the gas versions it's replacing.
